Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "A law firm with all sorts of interesting views on copyright has decided to go the extra mile. As reported on Tech Dirt, they've decided that viewing the HTML source of their site is a violation of copyright. From the site's EULA: 'We also own all of the code, including the HTML code, and all content. As you may know, you can view the HTML code with a standard browser. We do not permit you to view such code since we consider it to be our intellectual property protected by the copyright laws. You are therefore not authorized to do so.'"

No wonder they want to keep it hidden. No doctype! I'd be ashamed too.

http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/user-agreement [cybertriallawyer.com]
HTML error (1/5): The DOCTYPE declaration is missing.
HTML error (3/63): Illegal character "/" in tag.
HTML error (9/49): Illegal character "/" in tag.
HTML error (14/13): The tag is unknown in this HTML standard.
HTML error (15/286): The tag is unknown in this HTML standard.
HTML error (15/297): The tag is unknown in this HTML standard.
HTML error (15/297): Can't find start tag for end tag . Maybe the tag was implicitly closed before.
HTML error (16/14): The tag is unknown in this HTML standard.
HTML error (16/14): Can't find start tag for end tag . Maybe the tag was implicitly closed before.
HTML error (17/16): The tag is unknown in this HTML standard.
HTML error (88/17): The tag is unknown in this HTML standard.
HTML error (88/17): Can't find start tag for end tag . Maybe the tag was implicitly closed before.
HTML error (89/16): The tag is unknown in this HTML standard.
HTML error (94/17): The tag is unknown in this HTML standard.
HTML error (94/17): Can't find start tag for end tag . Maybe the tag was implicitly closed before.
HTML warning (100/354): The attribute "LEFTMARGIN" is deprecated in the tag and should no longer be used. It is suggested CSS be used instead.
HTML warning (100/354): The attribute "TOPMARGIN" is deprecated in the tag and should no longer be used. It is suggested CSS be used instead.
HTML warning (100/354): The attribute "MARGINWIDTH" is deprecated in the tag and should no longer be used. It is suggested CSS be used instead.
HTML warning (100/354): The attribute "MARGINHEIGHT" is deprecated in the tag and should no longer be used. It is suggested CSS be used instead.
HTML error (168/19): Illegal character "/" in tag.
HTML error (175/19): Illegal character "/" in tag.
HTML error (222/17): The attribute "CASS" in tag

GoLive is one of those programs that gives you just enough rope to hang yourself with, if you don't know what you're doing.I happen to like it and think it's a fairly decent tool, but I can imagine in the hands of someone who was totally clueless, and only used it in the WYSIWYG mode.... well, you'd get something like what you see above. Garbage. It has a tendency to do the usual WYSIWYG-editor things, like produce weird redundant nested tags, and generally make the code look horrible.

So they have a copyright on the word META? Or the use of META in HTML? Or what?

This stuff is getting out of hand. Imagine what would happen if lawyers were limited to a maximum total income of $100,000 per annum. The only ones left would be lawyers who actually enjoyed what they did enough to not be an asshole. They might actually be better at practicing law too.

Take a look at this line in the code:// OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, www.mindpalette.com, copyright 2004

They "own all the code" MY ASS. Perhaps they retained the services of Mindpalette to design their website or their own developers used some of their code, but this statement indicated to me that they DO NOT own at least a good chunk of the JavaScript in this file. Have they done their "due diligence" concerning their IP? Are the (retarded) terms-of-service on this web page compatible with the terms of service agreed to by Mr. Baldwin? I am the author of some GPLed scripts myself, and if I discovered they were used on this site I would take issue and even consider legal action!

Geez...get any 10 lawyers together, one will be a real decent person, the other nine will be total asshats.

Take a look at this line in the code:// OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, www.mindpalette.com, copyright 2004

They "own all the code" MY ASS. Perhaps they retained the services of Mindpalette to design their website or their own developers used some of their code, but this statement indicated to me that they DO NOT own at least a good chunk of the JavaScript in this file. Have they done their "due diligence" concerning their IP? Are the (retarded) terms-of-service on this web page compatible with the terms of service agreed to by Mr. Baldwin? I am the author of some GPLed scripts myself, and if I discovered they were used on this site I would take issue and even consider legal action!

It's very funny. The acts of paying for an internet connection and a computer, setting up a server and a domain name, and put these html pages unsecured upon that server is an act of publication. That interpretation is why Kazaa lady got nailed. The thing being published is not a browsing experience, it is a text file. I can use any tool I wish to view and interpret that text file, be it one I downloaded or one I wrote myself.

Unless they have secured the pages against free access and collected an agreement to terms of use prior to transmitting this text file, they can not retroactively enforce them. This means they cannot enforce that I use any particular viewing medium for the text.

However, what they have done is materially represented in the same site that they own the technology and the copyrights as a corporation, and also that the copyrights are some individuals property.

If it isn't fraudulent on the basis that they use the obvious message to intimidate people via legal threats without basis in fact into not seeing the contradictory ownership message in the comments, it's most certainly too sloppy to be borne on the front page of a site run by Internet Lawyers.

I knew lawyers were scum, but I figured it would be necessary for them to be at least somewhat smarter to get in the door. Apparently not.

Geez...get any 10 lawyers together, one will be a real decent person, the other nine will be total asshats.
Are you sure you can find one decent lawyer when you only have 10 total? I think you need a much larger collection of lawyers before you'll accomplish that...

While I'm not defending this kind of crap, it's pretty easy to like a lawyer who is on your side. I was just part of a successful class-action lawsuit against my employer for a number of really really stupid practices including rounding hours and restricting breaks. And it's hard for me to hate our lawyer.

I mean, outside of the fact that I wouldn't hire them for philosophical reasons. As an artist, I've relied many times on emulation as a means of learning technique. If people want to poke through my HTML (as messy as it can be) as a means of learning what to do and not do in web design, I say give'r.:)
- ev
_____________________http://evanbutler.com/ [evanbutler.com]

It is really annoying when people try to disable right click, some idiot message pops up on the screen, which you have to cancel prior to gaining the right click menu. Under firefox of course Tools, Options, 'Content tab', Enable Java Script(should be on but do use http://noscript.net/ [noscript.net]), Advanced, Diasble or Replace context menus (make sure it is un-ticked). My browser, not your browser, my browser;).

This EULA and website is by and for fanboys.
intimately familiar with the "hacking" industryWhat hacking industry?
We make no representations, express or implied, concerning the functionality, security, or technical integrity of the button, and while the button is hosted by you and merely links to our site, we still provide the button solely on an "as is" basis.The phrase "the button" is defined two paragraphs later, and poorly at that.
We do not permit you to view such code since we consider it to be our intellectual property protected by the copyright laws.Very very disingenuous. Copyright law protects against....COPYING! (not viewing; ever heard of this new technology called THE PRINTED WORD?). Also it is nearly universally refered to as copyright law, not "the copyright laws"
Dozier Internet Law, P.C. obviously has the capability to immediately react to such misappropriation,The word obviously has no legal value, and is out of place in an EULA. The whole point of an EULA is to make an agreement explicit in every detail.
Of course, we do not sell any of the information collected on our website.Again "Of course" has no place in an EULA
Businesses of the Internet, hear my cry: Do not use 15 year olds as your legal counsel!

The only Intellectual Property law that would permit Dozier Internet law to keep their source secret is "Trade Secret" protection, and they explicitly remove themselves from this protection with this phrase: "We don't presently conduct e-commerce activities in the sense of accepting registrations or providing private access to a protected area of our website." Trade Secret protection explicitly requires access to such secrets to be limited, authorized, and secure. Dozier, you struck out.

copyright could be used to prevent copying and distribution of the source, but viewing the source would not be protected by copyright.

Not directly, but it is possible to put conditions on the making of copies of the pages, and all people browsing the net necessarily make copies in order to do so. The issue would be whether they had managed to accomplish this and that they were even trying.

Copyright, Service Mark, Trademark, and Patent IP rights are secured by the US government. Securing your IP rights invol

Shakespeare's character has a quote from the correct page of the instruction manual for this kind of lawyerly behavior: "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

This is a common misconception of what Shakespeare said...

Contrary to popular belief, the proposal was not designed to restore sanity to commercial life. Rather, it was intended to eliminate those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution -- thus underscoring the important role that lawyers can play in society."

The same is true today. The common perception of lawyers, vis-à-vis this Shakespearean misquote, has arisen concurrent with the corporate oligarchy which views civil rights and independent thought as a threat to consumerism and profits.

That sounds more cynical than I intended it to, but I don't think it's terribly exaggerated. Rights cease to exist where legal representation falters.

Rights cease when common people can't understand what rights they have because lawyers obfuscate the English language with legalese and thereby try to cement their own overpriced job security. Also by way of insisting on self regulating their own (hah!) legal monopoly on administering and representing the legal system. Too bad we don't have a justice system any more or the modern lawyer would likely be tarred and feathered.

Actually, an exceptional level of congratulations are in order, as this subthread's OP has neglected to actually *read* the page he has linked to. The page at spectacle (http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html [spectacle.org]) that debrain cites as evidence instead contends that his interpretation is laughably incorrect, and the result of an attempt to turn a Shakespearean frown upside down. If you'll scroll down, the author later contends,

DICK.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

The audience must have doubled over in laughter at this. Far from "eliminating those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution" or portraying lawyers as "guardians of independent thinking", it's offered as the best feature imagined of yet for utopia. It's hilarious. A very rough and simplistic modern translation would be "When I'm the King, there'll be two cars in every garage, and a chicken in every pot" "AND NO LAWYERS". It's a clearly lawyer-bashing joke.

Now, I'm all for defending the lawyers and sophisters - I hope to become one, so

Presumably, if you've been to their site, you've already infringed their precious copyright, since your browser had to make a 'copy' of their precious HTML simply to render the page. Viewing it is irrelevant - the crime has already been committed.

These guys seem to have a shockingly stupid understanding of the Internet and copyright, even if you ignore the fact that they're claiming to be expert lawyers on Internet-related issues. I had assumed that the submitter must have misinterpreted things, but directly from their user agreement:

Dozier Internet Law, P.C. has a lot of intellectual property on our site. For instance, we are the creators of all of the text on this website, and own the "look and feel" of this website. We also own all of the code, including the HTML code, and all content. As you may know, you can view the HTML code with a standard browser. We do not permit you to view such code since we consider it to be our intellectual property protected by the copyright laws. You are therefore not authorized to do so.

(emphasis mine, and yeah, note the irony of me posting the text where they say all text on their site is copyright protected)

IANAL, but my understanding is that copyright is very much what is sounds like. "Copy right"-- the right to copy. The HTML code is necessarily copied to your computer in order to render the page. Therefore, the copying is done. Unless you can manage to argue that viewing the HTML code constitutes an additional "copy", then there isn't any possible chance that it could be a violation of copyright. It'd be like selling someone a book and then saying, "But you can't read this in bed, because we consider that a violation of copyright!" I'm sorry, but copyright doesn't allow you to determine how I use a legally-obtained copy.

What might allow them to determine how things are viewed or used is some sort of "User Agreement", which I guess is what they're trying to do. However, they're trying to make it binding simply by stating that, "By using our website, you agree to the following". However, calling it a "User Agreement" doesn't mean that anyone agreed to it. This agreement isn't even on the front page, and so it's entirely possible to browse through the site without ever seeing the agreement.

This is an impossible claim they make. Think about what a website really is, is it what the browsers render? Well different browsers can render the same code in different ways, so no, its not the rendering. Is it the code? Yes, the HTML of a site IS the site. From the website owners perspective there is no way of knowing what software or device the user is accessing the code with, for all they know, its being pulled up as just text, which would be the HTML.
Since in order for the owners of the site to show you the site, they must send you the raw HTML so that the browser can do its thing (like render structure and styles and ask the server for any images the code points to). Since thats all they are doing, it makes no sense that they would try to force users to not look at it.
What im trying to say is that, in order for you to see the licensing thing, you need to see the site, in order for you to see the site, they ahve to send you the raw code first, which is then at the whim of whatever software your using to render it. Was there not recently something about EULA's not being valid if the user has to purchase the item before seeing it? The same would apply here. You cant agree to the EULA before seeing it, and you cant see it before,.. well seeing it.
At what point would this stop, would you then start suing indivuduals who use the wrong browser, because they are not correctly rendering MY website? Or what about Userscripts and Greasemonkey, oh seems like those people would get sueing for altering the code without permission. This makes no sense.. you cant make proprietary something built off of an inherantly open platform
It boils down to making a sign that says "The content of this sign is copyrighted, by reading this you are violating copyright laws"

They totally understand this, and say as much. This is why they threaten the force of law if you look, because they know they can't actually physically stop you from looking. I believe they even know that their legal argument is false. Knowing that they can litigate you into financial oblivion right or wrong acts as a deterrent here, and I think this is their strategy. I can even tell you why they care. Because they are lawyers, and in their world everything they touch is valuable and the thought of someone using it without permission is highly offensive to them.

What if this is just a poorly disguised study to see how many people will do something they are specifically told not to do. Even with a threat of legal action.The results of this could be used in a lot of things from product advertising, public image control, and even motivating voters to come out for a cause. It this is a test to develop a theory or justify it, or just see what would happen to compare current tactics to the results.

Or maybe it is just a ploy to get free advertising. I mean it gets their n

The name of the law firm in question is Dozier Internet Law. The link is to their web page. Enjoy!

"we also are intimately familiar with the "hacking" industry"

"We maintain records of IP addresses and other information contained in log files"

"We also do not allow any links to our site without our express permission"

Well, you're screwed now. They're hackers, they have your IP, and you linked to their site.

"you should not make any copies of any part of this website in any way"

Of course, I'm in trouble too because the every act of viewing their page required me to download a copy of it. I suppose they could put their website on a CD, then mail it to everybody who calls in and asks to visit their website.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if someone pwned their site and replaced little things? Maybe something that they probably wouldn't notice but prospective customers would read carefully and realize how full of it this firm is? Something like

"we also are intimately familiar with the "hacking" industry. In fact, our website gets updated by the hacking industry from time to time."

"We maintain records of IP addresses and other information contained in log files. Soon we will figure out how to actually look at those log files to see what information is contained there."

"We also do not allow any links to our site without our express permission. In fact, you are not allowed to look at our web site without our permission. Hey, are you looking at this site right now? Stop that! Fine, our lawyers will be contacting you shortly."

Oh man, be sure to check out that video right on the front page. This site is pure gold! I want to archive the whole thing just to show people so they can join in the hilarity!I actually laughed out loud when the guy said "pioneer of internet law". Like, after these absolutely insane claims and statements, who's going to accept that he's apparently a pioneer of internet law? What is this, some new form of Alternate Reality Game [wikipedia.org] made to promote an upcoming video game or other entertainment product?? Th

They have placed HTML (an interpreted language) in public space to be viewed by people visiting their site.
If this were source code of some sort where users were supposed to be separated from the code then they may have ground to stand on, but the point is the exact text of their web page must be read and interpreted and is granted freely as such.
Hopefully this will bring the judge to the final ruling of: "duh!"

Look, sometimes you just don't need to justify the reasoning (how you need to transfer the HTML to read it), or explain the technical details (the intricacies of caching, transfer, futility of preventing view source, etc), and just run with your basic instinct: These are just bullying sociopaths who need to be clubbed right out of the gene pool.

How do you plan to stop me, or even discover it if I do it? I'm so scared. Please don't sic any of your shysters on me. You have me terrified that I might even be so much as accused of viewing your HTML source. Maybe you can make me pay you some money to not sue me, even though I couldn't care less about your chickenshit HTML.

That's what they get for not hiring an administrator for their web server who knows what they're doing. If they don't want people looking at their HTML source, they should just change the permissions to disallow it: "chmod -r 000 $WEBSITE_ROOT_DIR" This will also save them a ton of bandwidth!
Anyone have a link to their site so we can critique their page layout and other IP?

The IP datagram is printed, on a small scroll of paper, in
hexadecimal, with each octet separated by whitestuff and blackstuff.
The scroll of paper is wrapped around one leg of the avian carrier.
A band of duct tape is used to secure the datagram's edges. The
bandwidth is limited to the leg length. The MTU is variable, and
paradoxically, generally increases with increased carrier age. A
typical MTU is 256 milligrams. Some datagram padding may be needed.

Upon receipt, the duct tape is removed and the paper copy of the
datagram is optically scanned into a electronically transmittable
form.--

It seems to me that these people are doing a terrific job of negative advertising. their activities tell me two things: (a) they don't know much about copyright law; (b) they're a bunch of jerks. If I were considering employing them, both of these features would warn me off them. I'm tempted to think that they have a mole in their office who is out to undermine them.

So, the interesting legal question for the source code viewing clause would be: if you put something in a public area (eg: the internet), can you then claim someone viewing it is in violation of your implicit license agreement to view it? That is, if I post a sign outside my house, can I prohibit looking at the sign without wearing 3D glasses, for example? Someone with knowledge of how the normal law works want to educate me?

Ha ha ha, not only can I view their precious HTML code, I'm posting it to Slashdot for all the world to see!

<html><head><meta http-equiv="refresh" content="2;url=http://goatse.cx/"><title>Attorneys at Law</title></head><body bgcolor="#FF66FF"><!-- If you can read this, we're going to sue you! --/><h1>The Law Offices of Moron, Idiot, and Dumbass</h1><img src="OMG_Ponies.gif"/><blink>Need an incompetent ambulance chaser with no understanding of the law torepresent you? You've come to the right place!</blink></body></html>

Notice that they have a link to a google analytics script near the bottom...since google analtyics is not their intellectual property, does that mean we are still allowed to view that one line?!<html><head><base href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/user-agreement/"/>

We do not permit our website to be "spidered", or a program run through the website, for purposes of obtaining email addresses to be used in commercial email campaigns. We do permit search engines to access our website for purposes of indexing search results. We do not authorize you to access the Dozier Internet Law, P.C. website by conducting "click attacks", which is the practice of clicking on one of our online ads for the purpose of running up our advertising costs.

These people clearly have a very dim understanding of what copyright is and how it works. I'm not sure I'd want them representing me in a court case involving nuances of copyright if they don't even understand the fundamentals.

Copyright is about publishing, not viewing. Infringement is defined as someone other than the copyright holder publishing the copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder. That's all. Restrictions on viewing can only come from not publishing. Once it's published, game over. The purchaser of the published copy has every right to view the contents. Incidentally, this is why the RIAA goes after only uploaders, not downloaders.

By placing their copyrighted work on a public webserver, they have effectively published it to the web, and by not placing it behind a registration or payment wall, they have also effectively offered it for sale to the public in published form for $0. They are essentially handing out free pamphlets on a street corner, which they then forbid you from reading. There are no protection schemes (i.e., DRM) in use, so the DMCA circumvention provision doesn't even apply (it wouldn't apply anyway to mere viewing, only to infringement, which means publishing).

However, were I to copy their source code wholesale and use it for my site (including the design and/or layout), then they have a legal leg to stand on, and can sue me for infringement. Until that happens, any court in the country would give them a hearty "fuck you" if they tried to sue someone on the grounds that the source code was read in a browser.

Also, I found this gem on their site:

"Thank goodness for John and his team. These big law firms just don't understand how to handle technology litigation. With their trial record, technology expertise, and legal and business perspective, they have been a godsend...."

-- Internet Content Company CEO.

Apparently the little companies don't understand how to handle technology litigation, either. To call them shady would be an insult to used car dealers everywhere.

I can't believe the idiocy. How can anyone in the world tell the difference between just viewing the web page and viewing the 'source' of it? It's derivative in that it requires the browser to read the whole thing, even the parts that are trying to hide. What morons...

Ah yes, I've had contact from these yokels before. A while back a message board I administer got hit with a spam run, one of the spam posts advertised this company. One of the moderators cheerily replaced the payload link to Dozier's site with the text "Edited to remove references to legal company. Don't be so damn cheap, go and buy advertising."...prompting of course a demand letter from the company claiming defamation, copyright infringement (the spam consisted partly of advertising copy direct from their site) as a start.

Mr. Dozier served his legal process by creating an account on our forum and sending a poorly-spelled diatribe using the "report to moderator" feature. In the end I nuked the spam (it was spam, after all), but not before solving the "legal problem" once and for all by banning his account and IP block from the server.